But, far more often their response takes the form of a tu quoque
or, in the language of the schoolyard, “you’re another”. That is, they
seek to argue that the left is just as tribalist and anti-science as the
right. Favored examples of alleged left tribalism included any rhetoric
directed at rightwing billionaires ( Murdoch, the Kochs and so on). The
standard examples of alleged left anti-science are GMOs, nuclear power
and anti-vaxerism, but it is also sometimes claimed that US Democrats
are just as likely as Republicans to be creationists.

Allow Eli to restate his position on GMOs, he eats the shit, as does about everyone on God's green Earth. More details about the position of the blog on GMO's can be found here, and might be summed up as go forward but be observant, which is also our position on nuclear. As to the anti-vaxers, well, Eli will leave that to Respectful Insolence.

There is, in fact, rather useful research that shows that opposition to GMOs is spread across the political spectrum, and if anything, best correlates to sex (nononono ... not the absence thereof, but the fact that guys will shove any piece of pizza they can find into their mouths, women, not so much).

Quiggin points out that tu quoque, or as your mom put it, because your buddy does it, doesn't mean you have to be stupid.

I’ll argue over the fold that these examples don’t work. What’s more important, though, is what the tu quoque
argument says about those who deploy it, and their view of politics.
The implied claim is that politics is inherently a matter of tribalism
and emotion, and that there is no point in complaining about this. The
only thing to do is to pick a side and stick to it. What passes for
political argument is simply a matter of scoring debating points for
your side and demolishing those of the others. So, anyone who uses tu quoque
as a defence, rather than seeking to dissuade their own side from
tribalist and anti-science rhetoric, deserves no more respect than the
tribalists and science deniers themselves, who at least have the defence
of ignorance.

This is only for Greece and the authors note that, but I thought their focus on political attitudes to globalisation was a good idea. They find a correlation between political view and GM attitude. Which I don't find surprising, having hung around anti-globalisation types a lot. Opposition to GM is a proxy for opposition to capitalism in these groups - though they don't see it that way. (This demographic also tends to be young and university educated).

So that's within a pretty small subset of the population, but so's the group who `oppose' climate change. Which is where I find the comparison useful and interesting. Not so much for what these two groups oppose but what they accept without necessarily thinking through.

For politics more broadly, I see Quiggin's point, but I don't think he's right to claim that believing "politics and ideology influence how we filter science" is synonymous with "politics is inherently a matter of tribalism and emotion, and that there is no point in complaining about this; the only thing to do is to pick a side and stick to it."

Dan has misunderstood the excerpt from Quiggin posted above, thinking the "implied claim" Quiggin describes in order to criticize is what Quiggin said.

The "implied claim" that Quiggin is criticizing -- that one must join some political group -- is the mistake, as Russell has pointed out.

Quiggin's right: the people to (provisionally) trust are those -- of any political persuasion -- who are "seeking to dissuade their own side from tribalist and anti-science rhetoric" -- and do that first.

This is why I have respect for a diverse and often mutually incompatible group of people I'd like to consider friends -- people who struggle with themselves, and with their compatriots, before going out to improve everyone else's thinking.

And ya know what? Feedback from those folks -- whose politics are all over the map -- is worth serious attention, because they make the effort so when they come to correct me, I can (provisionally) think they've probably thought the point through before bringing it up.

PS, an example from a while back of an old friend, a crop scientist, making a valiant effort to educate the "environmentalists" -- http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/10/fuelish-fantasies.html

Well, the difference between the sexes when it comes to GMO pizza is easily pseudo-explained by appealing to our evolutionary heritage and the usual division of labor.

When you're running around the forest hunting wooly cave deer and dire sloths, you can't really afford to be picky about the provenance of those pizza slices you find along the way. Hunters need pepperoni for crucial calories, and they need it NOW!

Your gatherers, on the other hand, they spend all day in the pizzaria patches foraging. They can take their sweet time and exercise a little discrimination. In fact, to ensure that only the best gathering is done, they really need to get choosy about taking the best slices and leaving the rest to mature on the vine for a little longer. When you aren't chasing around those wily and voluminously-girthed sabre-toothed mastodons, quality over quantity is the metric to go for. Your clan is depending on those gathered pizzas for the bulk of their nutrients, so it pays dividends when you dare to compare.

My reading of Quiggin's remarks is that if you make tu quoque arguments then you've not only made an invalid argument you've also given the game away. You are essentially saying (in this instance) that yes, we disregard science but you do too. Now, even before you get to the point of proving the "you do too" by providing instance, verification, and relevance you've conceded the point. Tu Quoque, in this instance, is a political argument that boils down to: "So what? What are you going to do about it?"

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.